Talk:Jane Roberts/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archival note: Frequent top-posting on Talk:Jane Roberts left the order of threads in a mess. Lacking the patience to refactor 164kb, I just picked a point in the middle and archived everything above it. The result is that this Archive 1 contains threads begun from 2003 through, July 2006, with some exceptions. If someone wants to undo my work and refactor the whole thing properly, feel free. JamesMLane t c 08:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to cast doubt on everything that Jane Roberts said; thus it isn't necessary to say that Jane Roberts "claimed" to be skeptical of Seth's origins. The qualifying comment at the top of the article is enough to qualify the entire article without peppering the text with qualifying words such as "claimed". Furthermore, the "claimed" text that Max Mangel keeps inserting is awkward.

I question whether the Criticism section is appropriate for this article at all, since the entire article is preceded by the qualifying comment in brackets; but if it is going to stay, the wording has to be impartial and free of emotional overtones, such as derision.

Furthermore, there is no reason why there can't be an answer to criticism in the Criticism section.

I have added comments at the bottom of this page.--Caleb Murdock 05:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional Paragraph

Any thoughts on adding a paragraph between the fifth and sixth paragraph (after "life and consciousness.") on the ideas presented in the Jane Robert's book, The Nature of Personal Reality? I read Jane Robert's books many years ago, and as far as I know, the ideas presented in The Nature of Personal Reality are unique. I think that any unique theory should be presented to readers for consideration. What do you think?Michele123 20:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to have some of Seth's exercises and quotes---concerning working with one's beliefs---listed as well. Perhaps his three-point approach, and at least one lengthy quote, like the one from Jane Roberts that is listed. Something evocative and as said, unique, would be agreeable.Cheliro 19:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)cheliro

First of all, new comments should be put at the bottom of this page. If you put your new comments somewhere in the middle, not many people will notice them.

Michele123, I have read The Nature of Personality at least three times, but I don't know which statements of Seth's you are referring to. That book covers dozens and dozens of topics. If you haven't read that book in "years", as you say, I really think you should read it again before editing the article.--Caleb Murdock 08:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed

"The Seth books are arguably one of the most original and profound series of books about reality ever written."

from the first paragraph. It doesn't seem NPOV to me. Andrewa 09:31, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

"that she believed might be a part of herself"....

It's just not true. It looks like someone who didn't read any of her books wrote that (and that dosen't belive in channeling). F16 (I wasn't logged-in)

In fact, it is true that Jane Roberts was always conflicted about the phenomenon of channeling Seth. Apparently, she coined the term “channeling;” likening the experience to changing channels on a television set, she wrote that she “switched the channel” of her consciousness. In “The Nature of Personal Reality” she wrote: “For years I’ve been confused, trying to define Seth in the usual true-false world of facts. There he’s accepted as an independent spirit—a spirit guide by those with spiritualistic beliefs—or as some displaced portion of my own personality by the scientific community. I couldn’t accept either idea, at least not in undiluted form…. If I said, ‘Look, people, I don’t think Seth is a spirit IN THE WAY THAT YOU MEAN,’ then this was interpreted as an acknowledgement that Seth was ONLY a part of my personality.... The spirit guide may represent something far different than we think. The [spirit guide] idea can also be limiting if it always places revelatory knowledge outside of us, and tries to make literal some extraordinary phenomena that may be beyond such interpretation.” (p. viii).

It is also interesting to note that during the period Roberts and Butts began producing the Seth books (late 1960s), Helen Schucman and William Thetford, two respectable academic psychiatrists at Columbia University, began producing what would become "A Course in Miracles," which contains the same ideas as the Seth books, couched in a quasi-religious context.

---

--sparkit 18:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did some copy editing.

The Cayce paragraph, to me, doesn't fit in this article.

In reference to this discussion, I don't think Jane coined the term "channeling." That came later, by other people.

Category

Should this really be under "metaphysics"? That category is in the philosophical sense - not the psychic sense.

Jesus

There is a very interesting chapter in one seth-book I have been reading a few years ago. The German title was "Von der ewigen Gültigkeit der Seele". In this book he said that Jesus has not been nailed to the cross but another man, who suffered from insanity, not because he wanted to fullfill the jewish prophecy.

Indeed so. In this hardly insignificant detail, the Seth books are awkwardly incompatible with 'A Course In Miracles' (to which comparison is often made): 'Seth' claims that Jesus was not really crucified, while the 'Jesus ' of A Course In Miracles several times explicitly mentions 'His' experience of being crucified and the true significance of this historical event. They can't both be right...

A serious student of A Course in Miracles understands that the Course's words don't always mean what they say literally and really should not be taken that way. The Course should be taken metaphorically and the content behind the form has to be understood. The Course is not a newspaper and shouldn't be read that way. In fact, the Course's language is the biggest problem for most of its students. The Course is in no way scientific and is often poetic. It often refers to God having arms, hands, tears, and a Voice and doing very human things but the Course's content teaches something quite different: that He does not have a body and does not even know about us at all. Indeed, the Course is written on two very distinct levels: One of non-duality and the other of duality. The Jesus of the Course is not the Jesus of the Gospels: he does nothing in this world because this world does not exist, yet like Seth he does not deny this world. Jesus in the Course is language that we can accept and understand and that language is often the metaphoric language of myth, thus when he speaks of the Crucifiction he is NOT talking about a historical event. The form of the Course is often inconsistent but the content always is. So, yes, Seth may be quite correct about the historical Jesus. Who knows? For speculation is inhabiting the world of myth and myth is not literal.

What Seth actually 'says' (about the 'substitute')is:

"The 'substitute' was a personality SEEMINGLY deluded, but in his DELUSION he knew that each person is resurrected. He took it upon himself to become the symbol of this knowledge.... The man CALLED Christ was not crucified. In the overall drama however it made little difference what was FACT, in your terms, and what was not--for the greater reality transcends facts and creates them." [Session 674].

In her book Psychic Politics, Roberts discusses apparent discrepancies among psychics and their information. Her idea was that the material was interpreted according to the talents and beliefs of the individual receiving, and this included her own material.

Contradictions.

I believe an interpersonal look at the Seth work will show as it did to me, that the blatant contradictions present in the works, even having been noted by Robert Butts and Jane Roberts herself, are the product of taking Seth's assumptions; that all realities are possible and occurring along side ours in all possible "directions", stem from not considering that you can not say for sure that Seth has not taken his information from multiple realities, being that "he", as he says has access to all the possible scenarios. He doesn't mention though whether he may be misplacing where or from what strand of "reality" the information comes from. It then leaves the possibility that the material though often contradictory can be "channeled" or "remembered" from separate strands of reality.

The information is all very coincidental to Jane and Robert's situation at the time. All be it, Seth explains that All That Is, is pre-agreed upon. I can't say pre-destined because he/she makes it clear that it is not the case. Yet he says several times that reality is the product of all consciousness agreeing on what to label reality as.

A reader looking to Seth for answers is just as likely to find them lying drunk on the floor of some bathroom. One could also find them in almost any religious scripture from nearly any earthborn culture, as long as you ignore the labels these texts use. I believe you can derive the same benefit from Seth that you could from these other works if you ignore anything that seems related to actual history. In any religious manuscript the lessons are what people should focus on. The details of how one comes to illustrate these lessons are harmful.

I found the Seth 2, "channeling" to be the most beneficial. Short and sweet and to the point. ie: there is no point.

In the book "Seth Speaks", Seth described the Christ as a powerful psychic, a gifted individual capable of changing the course of world-events by his mere presence. In the same book, Seth maintained that when mankind is in great need, we (humankind), a gestalt consciousness en-masse, will bring forth from an individual such as Christ to help us with our world-problems. In biblical terms, Christ is stated as being the Son of Man, and also as the Son of God. Seth had stated that Christ had appeared before in our physical reality many times, and that Christ would also return but would not be known. Biblically, it is stated that Christ would return as a "thief in the night". --Cheliro 22:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)cheliro

POV/Criticism/claimed

I reverted and edited some of the additional information in the Criticism section - the information added was POV sentences that were opposite of criticism, so it had no place there(as opposed to factual rebuttle of criticism). Also, sometimes we do need to use the word 'claimed,' as is the case when Roberts 'claimed' to be skeptical of her own channelling. We don't know what she actually thought, and frankly, I don't believe that she had any doubts as to the nature of her channellings. MaxMangel 03:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

One's beliefs regarding this matter are irrelevant. JR was, as is evident form her friends's and husband's memoirs, beset by doubts about the nature of the Seth channeling to the end of her life. Bardon Dornal 07:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no, my belief's are not irrelevant. They are the logical base for all my rational thought. The evidence from her friends's and husband's memoirs can never by a hundred percent conclusive because it is impossible to know for certain what another person is thinking. For example, an alternative theory is that even though she stated she had doubts, she was actually a fraud...and so was lying. Hence, 'claimed.' It isn't that hard to understand. MaxMangel 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get your point. IMO, the following is beyond dispute: 1) JR was an influential psychic, who left behind her a huge body of written material-both "channelled" and her own ("Own own") 2) she was not a "fraud" in a sense that she faked her trances or something similar 3) whether Seth was a separate entity or Jane's subpersonality depends on one's worldview 4) Seth's (who-whatever (s)he was) teachings are very susceptible to criticism simply because Jane's illness and death seem to contradict them, which is, bearing in mind that it was not only an "academic" stuff, but strongly pragmatic instruction-crucial in their evaluation. In short: "practice" refuted "theory". In my view, these points are hardly debatable.Bardon Dornal 09:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Beyond dispute eh? Like as sure as gravity and the sun rising? What undeniable proof have you uncovered that proves she wasn't just a fraud? In my experience, channelling is a popular activity *because* people accept it without proof, and are willing to pay $750 dollars for a one on one session, etc. There will be many more people like Jane channelling their own higher plane entity and making lots of money in the process(an entity that will say that it can never be channelled by anyone else, but will not have a good reason as to why). It must be nice to be believed, even when walking the walk didn't happen and there is no example of it ever happening, ie everyone dies, no matter what they believe. By the by, my point was the usage of the word 'claimed' in the article, as opposed to any other word, in the sentence where I put in the word. MaxMangel 23:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What is beyond dispute that JR was not a fraud. She might have suffered from MPO, might have been psychologically unstable so as to believe her trances were anything beyond subjective ejaculations-but, it is very, very unlikely that she had been faking for more than 20 years and knew she had been deluding other people. Frauds get money from their victims and JR neither got rich nor left behind her a body of angry disciples who thought they'd been purposefully deceived (unlike Carlos Castaneda). Self-deluded maybe, fraud extremely unlikely. Bardon Dornal 16:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It can't be beyond dispute, because I am disputing it. I think you underestimate people's ability to have unusual motivations for their behaviour - money is not always the ultimate goal. Acclaim, followers, etc, are all good motivational factors, although I accept the possibility of her being deluded. I don't know her state of mind, I merely theorise. MaxMangel 01:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Skeptics miss the point whether Roberts was "faking" it or not. The meta-physical construct of reality she dictated has many similarities to recent theories now becoming commonplace. Instead of claiming Seth was fake, examine the material and see if it is testable. It is still a theory, but a very intriguing one. Robert's own passing seems to have meaning, where she has entered another reality that Seth describes quite thoroughly. There are similarities between Jung's Synchronicity and the Seth material, so it is not so far fetched what the theory describes. I was especially drawn to the descriptions about the nature of time. I have read many books about the subject, and none have gone into so much depth and detail as the Seth theory.

If Roberts was faking it, then all the Seth material is mindless ranting - that *is* the point. The fact that other theories are similar would then be because they are also being dictated by false channellers, and these people are taking the path of least resistance by simply recycling unprovable/untestable ideas for as much money as they can. Here's an idea, get just one of these channelled entities to factorise a hundred digit number in under a minute. Then you'd have irrefutable evidence in the space of a single minute. Gee, that wasn't so hard. Instead, they talk about heaven, higher planes of existence, "all time is one", etc, exactly the stuff that people just have to accept on faith. It makes me laugh. MaxMangel 07:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if you cited a source for this sentence it might be worth including in the article: "Others, however, view the Seth Material as a religious text and therefore accept it as a matter of faith." Even if you do, I don't really so how it belongs in the criticism section. If it is some attempt at rebutting criticism, I don't really understand it. I'm absolutely sure that many people who follow the Seth material just blindly accept it on faith, like people often do with other texts of religious nature, but who cares.... MaxMangel 12:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's make something clear: only an unreasonable person would claim that Jane Roberts was a fraud. An easier argument can be made for "deluded" or "schizophrenic". The proof of the Seth Material is in the reading. I am now reading the Early Sessions and they unfold in a logical, completely believable manner. The Seth Material is brilliant and consistent from beginning to end; no one could have contrived it. IF it is true that Roberts was a fraud or otherwise deluded, then it is nonetheless true that she was a brilliant theorist and philospher. So let's drop this absurd discussion about fraud. Skeptics like Max take their skepticism beyond reasonable limits. --Caleb Murdock 05:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me address these issues one by one. You reverted my changes claiming that the criticism was ‘too negative’ and ‘biased.’

Firstly, there is no such thing as criticism that is ‘too negative,’ unless you are talking to a child and simply don’t want to hurt their feelings. Criticism can be improper because it is factually wrong, or exaggerated, or fanciful, but to criticise criticism for simply doing the job of being critical is to get annoyed at a bird for being a bird. But perhaps you were meaning something else? Please elaborate. Of couse, another explanation is that you are biased and simply don't want Jane to be properly criticised, but I await your explanation.

To get the indents, I just put in colons, right?

Criticisms can be lots of things. I've got a small business and I'm very busy, so I'll leave this particular discussion for another time.--Caleb Murdock 09:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You described my criticism as biased. Please help me find out where. Let’s look at it here. There are essentially three changes of significance in the criticism section. You removed the first part of this sentence:

“Skeptics assert that, like other people who claim to channel ghosts, angels, God and the like, Roberts offered no hard proof that a separate entity was being channelled, and so they offer the alternative explanation that Roberts was either self-deluded or a fraud.”

Very specifically, where is the bias in this sentence? I would claim there is nothing factually wrong in the first part of the sentence, which is the part you changed. I am a skeptic, for example, and I believe that Roberts offers no hard proof that she channelled anyone. If you want me to cite other skeptics, I can do that, which would be proof that this first clause is factual. So, explain to me where the bias is. I even cited an example in the article already.

"Skeptics assert that .... and the like" sounds dismissive to me.

Roberts wasn't trying to offer hard proof. As I've said before, the Material is essentially a religious text, and a very remarkable one at that, and it has to be judged accordingly. Either it "speaks to you" or it doesn't. "Proof" is irrelevant when it comes to religion because all religious beliefs are personal and subjective.--Caleb Murdock 09:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Now your addition:

“Since trance mediumship is a phenomenon that can't be proven, skeptics generally offer the explanation that Jane Roberts was either deluded or a fraud.”

Hmm, I note that unlike me, you cite no sources. Not just that, but I can prove your first clause to be factually incorrect. For example, Harry Houdini proved many trance mediums to be frauds. If this is a phenomenon that cannot be proven, then it should also be a phenomenon that cannot be disproven, and yet I’ve just provided you with an example of just that. It seems to me that you’ve added bias to this first sentence. But please, show me, very specifically, where the flaw in my logic is. Also, the logic causality of that sentence is flawed. If a claim cannot be proven, it is not a logical conclusion to simply assume that the person making the claim is a fraud or deluded. Essentially your sentence could read: "Sally couldn't prove she was attacked, so she must have been a liar." That is an illogical deduction. So I would claim you replaced my verifiable factual sentence with a biased illogical one.

When I said that trance mediumship cannot be proven, I meant that it cannot be proven to be true. I wasn't thinking in terms of proving it as false.

Now, either you are more intelligent than I am, or you are an accomplished sophistrist (is that a word?) because I can't fully follow your logical argument. Maybe I'm just too tired right now. So you are saying that the statement "since trance mediumship is a phenomenon that cannot be proven as true ..." is something you disagree with? I would think you would love that. It seems to me that both your text and mine say about the same thing, but yours strikes me as derisive, as I said.

Something just occurred to me: Roberts and Butts DID do a lot of tests of Seth's abilities. They had him read the contents of envelopes and such. And there were instances during the readings when Seth knew something before it was known to them. Of course, if you believe that Roberts and Butts were frauds, then their assertions that they even did any tests are suspect. My point here is that the Seth Material is extremely plausible, and a reasonable person (who bothers to read the Material) will see that. The only thing that I think a reasonable person can doubt is whether Jane Roberts was actually the one speaking, and not a separate, discarnate entity.--Caleb Murdock 09:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The third thing of note was this sentence you added: “Others, however, view the Seth Material as a religious text and therefore accept it as a matter of faith.”

Now, I specifically asked you for a reference for this sentence previously and you completely ignored me. I say again, please provide a citation. See wiki rules on verifiability. Your again lack of citation leads me to believe this is simply something you believe and is your own baised opinion.

However, I'm not going to re-revert before giving you the opportunity to respond. Please provide the citations I've enquired about, and answer the questions I've made above. Please be specific. If you don't respond within 24 hours I'll revert. MaxMangel 11:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's something that I believe, but I also think it is obvious from the Material. The Material is all about God, the origins of life, etc. It is religious in nature. I don't know how to prove that others see it that way also. What I can do is to re-word that so that I'm not making a general statement about what other unnamed people believe. I'll need a day or so to come up with something, as I'm very busy now. Let me add again, however, that there's no reason why an answer to criticism can't be given in this section.

How much of the Seth Material have you read? I've read 8 or 9 books. It continues to blow me away. I assume you are an atheist.

I'm sure we can come up with a compromise on the wording, though someone else will probably delete it at some point.

Okay, it's way past my bedtime, but I came up with the paragraph below. Two things: First, Skepdic.com is hardly an authoritative reference. My imipression is that it is a site written by cranks and crackpots who make a religion out of not believing in anything (however, I'm open to changing my opinion -- I'll look it over more closely). Perhaps you could find a well-known philosopher or theologian to serve as your reference. Secondly, the second sentence of my proposed paragraph includes a little speculating, but I think speculating is valid in an encyclopedia. Let me know what you think.

"Skeptics assert that Roberts offered no hard proof that a separate entity was being channelled, and so they offer the alternative explanation that Roberts was either self-deluded or a fraud. [1] However, the Material, which is concerned with issues of God, the origin of life, and the construction of the universe (among other topics), has strong metaphysical overtones and can be viewed as a religious text, for which standards of proof would be irrelevant. A common criticism of Roberts and the Material is that, despite Seth's assertions that each individual "creates his own reality", Roberts was unable to prevent her final illness or her death at the relatively young age of 55."--Caleb Murdock 09:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay Caleb. I accept that you are editing in good faith. However, I think from your comments (and edits) that you don't have a clear understand of the wiki's rules for the following: WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Please look at them when you get the chance. I'd like to enter a compromise with you, but your analysis of religious texts in the second sentence there is very POV. I don't think I could accept it without a citation. Keep in mind that that doesn't mean it stays out of the article forever, should you be able to find a source for it in the future.

But to answer your other questions, I haven't read any of the Seth books. Yes, I am an atheist - in the sense that I have never encountered what I would describe as evidence of there being an invisible all powerful being.

As for the citation of Skeptic.com, feel free to read this info on what constitutes a reliable source, but the sentence was about skeptics, and I provided an example. If I was discussing what philosophers or theologians thought, then I'd provide a citations for them, but the sentence was about the opinion of skeptics. MaxMangel 14:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? You have never read any of the Seth Material and yet you presume to edit an article about it in an encyclopedia? WHAT??? Frankly, I don't think you should be editing this article at all, and I suspect that I would have no problem finding a Wikipedia guideline that says that participants should only edit articles on subjects that they are knowledgeable about.

Do you visit ALL the articles on metaphysical topics inserting words like "claimed" and peppering the articles with qualifications and doubts? If you would do it on this topic, about which you know nothing, then you would do it on others. I can't tell you how irresponsible I think that is. And YOU presume to judge MY motivations???

You say that you are an atheist because you have not found any evidence of a god, but you clearly don't want to find any evidence; otherwise, you would have read some of the Seth Material, which is utterly remarkable from the first word to the last.

I would be more than happy to have a personal discussion about religion with you, and to share with you some of the things that Seth said; but you and I are no longer negotiating on the text of this article. There's no sense in negotiating with you if you have no knowledge about the topic. I will simply check it every day to make sure that you don't ruin it. I am also going to save your admission that you know nothing about it; and if you keep changing the article, I'll contact the people at Wikipedia with a complaint. According to the article in the New York Times, Wikipedia does oversee the encyclopedia and make editorial decisions.--Caleb Murdock 07:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I've only now worked out you replied in various staggered paragraphs within my posts. Please don't do that, it makes it hard to follow a discussion and if I wanted to reply I'd then have to reply in four different places, which justs get annoying. Now, Caleb, this is not an article about the Seth Material. Have a look at the title. It is about a person called Jane Roberts, who happened to write the Seth material. I don't need to have read her books to edit an encyclopedia entry on her life. No, I don't edit articles I know nothing about. Here is another wiki guidline Wikipedia:Assume good faith, which I think would be a good read for you. I have as much right to edit this article as you, so please don't say things like you're 'no longer negotiating,' because you need to get used to other editors.

Please do contact other people on wikipedia. I very much recommend you get a mentor on how to edit articles and how to interact with people like me. Please keep your edits closer to the discussion at hand, rather than grand statements about the universe. I see you've removed the criticism section entirely. I'll just add that back. If you stop negotiating with me and blindly revert my edits (without citing clear wikipedia rules), you will official be a vandal and your user account will become blocked. Please consider this before acting rashly. MaxMangel 12:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your attitude is utterly fantastic. If you haven't read Jane Roberts' books (any of them!), you aren't qualified to edit an article about her. Period.

You lack integrity. A person with integrity bothers to learn something about the things he comments upon. I can refute portions of Christianity and Buddism because I know a great deal about them, yet I don't know enough about Islam or Hinduism to comment on them, so I don't. You don't even know what Jane Roberts said about Seth. You don't know that she was doubtful about his origins, that she didn't care for being a "trance medium" all that much, and that she did little to promote the Seth books because of her doubts. Don't you think you should find out things like that before you edit a sentence about how she felt about Seth?

In my opinion, you are an intellectual dillettante. You have a narrow view of reality; and instead of trying to expand your views, you set boundaries up against knowledge. If this were just a personal exercise for you, it would be one thing. But adding skeptical comments to articles on Wikipedia about which you have no knowledge just makes you a cyber bully.--Caleb Murdock 23:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

What can I say? You are clearly ignorant of the rules of the wiki and, despite my repeated suggestions, you’ve made no attempt to change that fact. If you think you can simply flout the rules forever, you’re wrong. I have contacted the Mediation Cabal. It would be wise for you to cease your personal attacks. MaxMangel 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

MaxMangel contacted the Mediation Cabal for help in resolving this dispute. I'm prepared to help do some of the mediation, so just a few notes:

• I'm just another ordinary Wikipedian, but a neutral one, who I hope can help.
• The process is entirely voluntary.
• Nobody gets sanctioned, criticised, or rapped on the knuckles. All we're interested in is calming down the dispute and producing the best article we can.
• If you're interested, head over to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-19_Jane_Roberts, and leave a note.

Thanks, Grobertson 23:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that mediation is necessary. Max Mangel is a self-styled "skeptic" and atheist who apparently goes around to various articles on metaphysical subjects making changes, even though he knows little about the subjects. For example, he has admitted that he has never read any of the books by Jane Roberts, whereas I have read nine. I can't respect a person like that.

Mangel's only apparent concern is that the article not promote unproven phenomena. That's fine. However, I won't negotiate with him over the text since he knows nothing about the subject. In the last day, I tried to make changes to the article to reflect his skepticism.--Caleb Murdock 02:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's really good to see an editor with specialist expertise. There aren't enough of you ;) Wikipedia aims to present a WP:NPOV in all its articles. This is a subtle policy, with many effects, but broadly speaking, says that all major points of view must be reflected in the article. In a carefully written article, we can create space both for your view and a more skeptical approach - much like the balanced reporting you might hope to find in news outlets. Ultimately, it's up to the reader to decide what they will believe.

Having read the books is great, because it allows you to WP:CITE your sources accurately, which makes it easier for every other wikipedian editing the article to move from there. Unsourced edits are frequently challenged if the challenging editor doesn't believe them. Grobertson 09:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that if you read the articles you'll see that it is balanced. I personally believe in the phenomena of trance mediumship, but I'm not foolish enough to believe that my opinion is in any way neutral. In my opinion, Mangel has been nitpicking the article, adding qualifications that aren't necessary (since there is a general qualifying statement at the beginning) and also contributing a tone to the article which is biased in a negative way.

Cites are a problem with the Seth Material. Seth may have made the same point repeatedly, in as many as 50 different places, and it isn't easy to know which instance to cite. Furthermore, none of the books have indexes, so finding passages is difficult. I'll see what I can do to add cites. In the meantime, the article contains a general representation of his statements.

When contributing to this discussion page, should I always put my remarks at the bottom?--Caleb Murdock 10:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do that Caleb, unless responding within a different section for a different subject.

As you can see, Grobertson, Caleb has developed a personal disliking to me as an editor and, I contend, is trying to dominate this article by force of will. He clearly does not care for Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and more. Again he says "However, I won't negotiate with him over the text since he knows nothing about the subject." - essentially he is attempting to ban me from editing this article. He breaks so many wiki policy rules it isn't funny. I concede he has attempted to introduce comparable material to what I have written, which I respect, but I will not accept being denied editing access to this article when I have done nothing wrong.

His lies about me are manifold. I obviously know something about the subject, or else my edits would make no sense, and yet he continually repeats that I know nothing - an obvious lie.

Another lie - "apparently goes around to various articles on metaphysical subjects making changes, even though he knows little about the subjects." This is merely his opinion, an opinion he formed on the single Jane Roberts example that he provides. Tell me Caleb, what other 'examples' do you have?

Edgar Cayce & Chanelling, for two.-Caleb

Ah yes, my link spam removal. Not the best of examples Caleb. Doesn't exactly support your case. There are many articles I have edited, Caleb. Proving that is hardly what I'd call evidence for your case. MaxMangel 15:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What he describes as 'nitpicking' others would called 'NPOV.' His example of there being a general qualification at the start so my changes weren't necessary is invalid because that change came about because I was introducing the skeptics perspective to an otherwise POV article.

His accusations against me are always point of view statements that he never qualifies with actual wikipedia rules, whereas I continue to show that he is continually breaking wikipedia policy guidelines. My problem here is less about the article, I'm not too upset about where it is at at the moment - but simply that Caleb is refusing to cooperate with me as a fellow editor. I would be happy to have him continue to edit the article and introduce lots more to it. I am waiting for him to extend me the same courtesy. MaxMangel 12:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ways forward

Everybody seems reasonably happy with the current article, which is brilliant, but it's worth looking at how we can make it better. How about:

• Giving the Seth Material its own article, which can - and probably should - include a discussion about its authenticity.
• Once that's been done, removing the mildly unusual disclaimer at the top of the article and refactoring the rest so it isn't needed.

Any other ideas?

Grobertson 13:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Find out

Yes, but Caleb is refusing to work with me. He has stated this many times. That needs to be resolved before I can contribute here. MaxMangel 13:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Everybody, be bold and make the edits you want to make, and then discuss them on the talk page. Nobody can work together if nobody's working ;) Grobertson 13:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) There is no point in negotiating with a person who knows nothing about the topic at hand and whose only true interest is to discredit it. As evidence of this I give you Mangel's first draft of the Criticism section in which he said that "the more likely explanation is that Jane Roberts was a fraud". Any person who has read the Material knows that isn't true.

(2) Regarding the Criticism section which I deleted, it has no place in this article. It reflects other people's opinions and does not inform the reader about Jane Roberts. The fact that channelling is a controversial phenomenon can be indicated in other ways.

(3) I agree that the disclaimer is awkward. I'm considering ways to remove it. --Caleb Murdock 16:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And again, Caleb lies. I never said "the more likely explanation is that Jane Roberts was a fraud," I said the equivalent of "Skeptics believe the more likely explanation is that Jane Roberts was a fraud," which is a completely different sentence and is a perfectly valid and factual sentence. How is this not true Caleb? Please prove the sentence wrong with a citation.

You see, Grobertson, this is what Caleb does. He'll now either provide some POV defense without any citation to back it up, or just change the subject and hope we all forget his distortion of the truth.

Also, not everyone who reads the Seth material agrees that it is helpful. On this very talk page above someone did a rant on how useless they are...or something. The point was unclear.

Caleb's defense for not having criticism, and these are different reasons to what he has used before, is that it isn't informative of Jane and it reflects 'other people's opinions.' So, what you're saying is you don't want the opinions of people who disagree with yours being mentioned in the article? How blatently biased...

Note also that he doesn't even attempt to defend his wikipedia rule breaking. And he restates the tired old line that I 'know nothing' about the topic. Tell me, Caleb, have you read Speaking of Jane Roberts the autobiography? Because this article is about Jane Roberts so if you haven't read that book, then you know nothing about the topic, and should not be allowed to edit the article. And have you read the wiki page on wikipedia? Because if you haven't you know nothing about the wiki and should not be allowed to edit articles. And have you read the manual on your computer? Because if you haven't you know nothing about computers and should be allowed to use one. Oh wait...you find those statments unfair? Well it is your logic I'm using. MaxMangel 00:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Grobertson, as long as this discussion is still going on, let me say that I'm new to Wikipedia and that I obviously have a lot to learn. I have an internet business which keeps me working 50 hours a week, so I may not be able to read all the rules right away, but I will read them soon. If I have broken rules, I apologize.

However, my contributions to this article have been significant. The majority of the language in the "Seth Material" section was written by me (before I registered), and it is a vast improvement over what was there before. Even if I've inadvertently broken some rules, I suspect I haven't broken as many as Mangel suggests. I suspect that Mangel was hoping I'd be kicked off Wikipedia as a result of his complaint (and he made threatening noises [above] about how that was a possibility), but I'm sure the mistakes I've made are the same mistakes that most newcomers make. Furthermore, the fact that I know so much about Roberts/Seth, whereas Mangel knows very little (and if he hasn't read any of her books, he indeed knows very little), is more important than he wants to admit.

Let me give you an example of why I have a problem with Mangel: I had a line in there that read, "Roberts herself remained somewhat skeptical [about Seth's origins] until the end of her life." Mangel didn't like that and kept changing it to "Roberts claimed to be skeptical ...". Well, Mangel can't know WHAT she "claimed" because he hasn't read the books in which she discussed her feelings and doubts. No person can reliably edit content without knowledge of the facts.

I learned only recently that Susan Watkins wrote a biography about Roberts, and no, I haven't read it. However, there is a great deal of personal information about Roberts in her books, and I have read 9 of those (with 6 additional books of Early Sessions on my shelf ready to be read). I have also read several articles about her. I'll move Watkins' biography up to the top of my reading list.

Now, as for my unwillingness to negotiate with Mangel, I don't know what else to say. Most revisions to most articles are probably not the result of negotiation. Whether I am right or wrong, I have come to see Mangel as what I call a "skeptic-kamikaze", a skeptic/atheist who has an ax to grind and is intent on grinding it on the heads of those of us who are foolish enough to believe in spiritual nonsense. I have found his corrections on at least 3 articles on metaphysical topics, and I am sure there are others. In my view, he is a self-appointed "thought cop". Of course, the rules of Wikipedia may permit that, but it strikes me as improper that he should presume to correct the writings of people who actually know something about the topic at hand.

In closing, let me say that I'm well aware that articles on sensitive subjects have to be neutral, and you can be sure that my revisions will always be neutral, if not letter-perfect according to Mangel's standards.--Caleb Murdock 09:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So, you provided evidence of my poor form. Let's examine that evidence. Are you saying that my sentence was wrong? So you're saying that she never claimed to be skeptical? Wow. I'm not sure why the information was in the article in the first place if she never claimed to be skeptical. Oh wait, you're not saying that, so the sentence is accurate, you just don't like the subtle insinuation that she may have in fact been lying. So, your 'problem' is nothing to do with the factual accuracy of the statement and more to do with my 'nitpicking' on presumptions in the text. I don't need to have read anything about someone in an article to change information that presumes to state someone's inner thoughts. If an article reads 'Elvis was in love with his neighbour' then it is wrong. It should instead be a sentence showing the information that indicates the potential thoughts and emotions of the subject of the article. This is called factual writing, as opposed to 'point of view' writing. Another way to put it is 'Roberts herself expressed skepticism as to Seth's origins' - which is what's in the article - a more factual and less presumptious account of the situation. The article is better for it. MaxMangel 15:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

NO. You are just not getting it. You are reading statements that other people have written and presuming to know what is wrong with their statements without actually knowing the facts. Whether you like this or not, good encyclopedias are written on standards of reasonable evidence, not on standards of proof, and no reasonable person who is familiar with Jane Roberts' writings considers her to be a fraud. The evidence to the contrary is just too enormous. That's why I said earlier that a more reasonable argument could be made for her being self-deluded. You are just simply so convinced that any psychic phenomena is invalid that you are judging all the participants as con artists without having a full familiarity with the phenomena. Your lack of knowledge of the facts is fatal insofar as your ability to make good edits is concerned.

This is incorrect: "I don't need to have read anything about someone in an article to change information that presumes to state someone's inner thoughts." Presumptions that may appear to you to be reasonable may not be once you learn the facts. If you are to make good edits to articles, you need to have knowledge of the subject. Period.

And yes, your constant little insinuations that Roberts was a fraud are inappropriate for this article because your entire assumption that she was a fraud is unreasonable. Learn the facts.

Okay, so explain it to me. What is factually wrong with the statement: "Roberts herself remained somewhat skeptical [about Seth's origins] until the end of her life."

What does this mean: "Whether you like this or not, good encyclopedias are written on standards of reasonable evidence, not on standards of proof,"

Now back up this statement, by showing factually and verifiably that it is true with regards to this article: "Your lack of knowledge of the facts is fatal insofar as your ability to make good edits is concerned."

Prove this statement: 'no reasonable person who is familiar with Jane Roberts' writings considers her to be a fraud.'

That's right, Caleb, I'm asking you to prove it - as in, show that it is not simply one more biased personal opinion of yours. MaxMangel 02:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to be drawn into an endless debate. You need to educate yourself on Jane Roberts and the Seth Material if you want to edit this article with integrity. Until you do, I'll be dropping in every day to check it over.--Caleb Murdock 07:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You made a whole lot of statements without citing evidence, got asked to prove it, and made up an excuse. I don't think anyone would be surprised at this repeat of the past. Facts shouldn't be the enemy for someone who wants to edit an encyclopedic article. MaxMangel 13:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Max, in my opinion you are not a true atheist. Just in case it isn't obvious why, send me an email and I'll explain it to you. I understand that personal comments are discouraged here.--Caleb Murdock 03:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A Third POV?

Hello, I have read through the talk debate above. There are quite a few disagreements. I will talk about one first; 'Whether or not Jane Roberts' 'channelling' is fraudulent; deliberately fraudulent, or misguidedly, or otherwise.' Maybe it would be useful to find a published critic of the Seth Material, who has read at least one Seth/Roberts book, and has a fair idea what the Seth/Roberts the Seth Material contains or promotes. I can see how the authenticity of Roberts as a channel can be called into question, much like Edgar Cayce's work has been. For a sceptical viewpoint we need citations from critics, (Wikipedia rules); for a supportive viewpoint(of Seth's usefulness and validity) we need citations.

I have never read any of the Seth material (not yet). I have read about 7 books written about Edgar Cayce, that quote his readings, and attempt to analyse them in context. I believe in the guidance of a Divine Source. I believe Siddhartha Gotama Buddha was a great philosopher on emptiness. Nietzsche was a great iconoclast. My point is that all these statements need qualification. Some of the Wikipedia articles that cover controversial topics, like Edgar Cayce and List of pseudoscientific theories, seem to go to great lengths to present a balanced point of view on the subject matter. Being neutral, and using neutral language, may appear scientific, and clinical, and tidy, but I would argue that anything 'written' contains biases - the bias of the writer/communicator, and the bias of the reader. It doesnt mean that that the communicator is right or wrong, it is simply a point of view. If Jane Roberts never set out to write books containing channelled information, it is possible she would simply be known as a philosopher and inspirational writer. And it is quite possible she would never have made it into any Encyclopaedia, or maybe a as an obscure reference somewhere. But it is very apparent to me that her core life work, and what she is (in)famous for, is the Seth Material. Thus I believe that discussion about her life, in the context of the impact that the Seth material had on her mental and physical wellbeing, as well as the influence it has had on subsequent writers, philosophers, and thinkers, are all important aspects of what constitutes 'Jane Roberts'. I've got way off topic from the concept of her being fraudulent or not. Maybe not.

Well, it seems the common practice that I have come across in discussions and labellings within Wikipedia so far, when a skeptical viewpoint is presented on difficult to verify spiritual phenomena, is to label it a pseudoscientific viewpoint. In that sense, I would say that such a label would possibly be presented here (for the first time?) i.e: the Seth Material as pseudoscience, and thus an original assessment made by the Wikipedian community. What is the policy on original research? Isnt every article in Wikipedia an original contribution to knowledge, based on the findings, citations, and verifications made in scholarly peer reviewed journals, on film, in archives, files, library resources, museums of facts? So do we label Jane Robert's work as pseudoscientific? Is that an accurate presentation of her work? Who exactly, which authority, is claiming that she has been fraudulent in her presentation of the Seth Material. Who benefits from the fraud? Who benefits from the facts? The readers of this article online?

I really do feel that the word 'claimed' in the context of this article, if oversused, can create an implicit bias that the Seth Material is 'unscientific'. Can philosophy be 'unscientific'? Of course it can? Can the Seth Material represent truth? Can it represent fraud? There is a whole other level of meaning here about the bias of language to represent a "medium", and I believe mediumship implicitly represents a point of view: Jane Robert's/Seth's point of view. The authenticity of Jane Robert's authorship of the Seth Material should not be questioned. If so, we need to hire a private investigator to question her friends and family about her publishing intentions. Did she just crave attention as a New Age Guru? Did her fraudulent intetntions relieve her anxiety about her lack of notoriety as 'channel'? Apparently, she didnt even really want to be a channel at times... I think I digress into critical assessments of what her life might have been like, given certain premises about her philosophy and mental state. Roberts appears to have stated (in the article?) that she was uncomfortable with the authenticity of the Seth Material herself. It does not follow that her psychological discomfort means she had an undiagnosed delusional psychosis. People who hear voices in their head are not always crazy. Socrates called it his intuition: yes, or no. Jesus and Moses certainly spoke in terms of listening to God-source(s). Who knows? I suppose you need to utilise 'belief', give it a 14 day free trial, to see if it works for you. Did you really use it? Or do you want your money back before the offer ends, convinced it is useless?

Basically let the life of Jane Roberts, her own philosophical works, and the Seth Material speak for themselves. Describe what she was, what she did, give some detail of what she did (channelled Seth Material), details from her friends and critics, make it interesting for the reader of this encyclopedia, and leave it at that. User talk:Drakonicon Drakonicon 16:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you haven't read any of Roberts' writings either? Why do so many people on Wikipedia feel compelled to share their opinions even when they have no knowledge of the subject?

To answer your one concrete suggestion (besides hiring a detective): There are enough categories into which Jane Roberts and the Seth Material fall (psychic, trance medium, channelling, paranormal phenomena, etc.) that there's really no need to make up a new category. Besides, I would never agree to the term "pseudoscience" because the prefix "pseudo" means "false", and it hasn't been proven that the Seth material is false.

The disagreement with Mangel is simple and basic: He knows nothing about the subject but insists on editing the article anyway, and his edits are artless and biased.

As for cites, I will come up with as many as I can, but it's difficult. Seth would make a particular point over and over again, so it is hard to know which passage to cite. There are a lot of Seth books and none of them have indexes. I'll insert cites into the article eventually.

Your post contains 905 words. If you post again, would you please try to be concise?--Caleb Murdock 06:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I havent read a Jane Roberts work. I posted because it seemed that Max Mangel was sharing a skeptical view without having familiarity with a single Roberts text. I was trying to demonstrate the absurdity of philosophising on the use of skepticism in an article that really did not need it. One line to suggest that interpretations of the Roberts/Seth Material is controversial, would be enough. The artistry of my post was intended to show yet another useless intrusive philosophical position held by myself (the editor/critic/interpreter), a position that I have found some editors 'expert' at performing, in some of the Wikipedia articles I have read so far. I thoroughly support your work here Caleb. My inital post was intended to be unbiased in my suggestions. I must have struck a different chord.

The point about hiring a detective was tongue-in-cheek, because the whole act would yield very little useful results, and the concept is intrusive and offends my sensibilities. The question I was implying with the detective scenario was: Do we really need to go to that level of investigation to find out whether Roberts was a fraud? The point about 'pseudoscience', is again, a deliberately artless and biased statement, intended to provoke debate, and I DO NOT want Jane Roberts to have such links in this article. As for citations (because Wikipedia is citation mad), just pick ANY citation from Jane's works; any instance in the article that concurs with what you have read. Any source (page number ref.) is better than no reference.

And due to the fact that this raging argument about who is right and who is wrong is so extensive (the entire discussion page above) I tried to introduce few ideas to clarify the situation. I have begun to read a little of Psychic Politics. I do not pretend to be an expert on Jane Roberts. My main point was that its appears that Max Mangel is making a general assumption about Jane Roberts, and introducting a debunking mindset into the article, when it doesn't really need to be included. Readers of this encyclopaedia should be capable enough to make up their own minds about materials herein; instead of being told what to think, or how to think about Jane Roberts. As for the word count..... Peace! Drakonicon 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This mediation case is still listed as "open". Is further mediation required or can I close this case? --Ideogram 07:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Addition

Redbongooze, I feel a little uncomfortable with your addition about Christ. It's not my recollection that Seth made a specific prediction about the discovery of the Gospel of Judas. If I am remembering incorrectly, please tell me where in the Material Seth says that. Also, if we are going to mention Seth's teachings on Christ, it seems to me that there are other more important things that should be mentioned.--Caleb Murdock 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Redbongooze, until I can verify the things you said, which don't strike me as accurate, I am moving your text here:

"Concerning the Christ story, Seth also predicted the discovery of the Gospel of Judas by alluding to the fact that Christ's relationship with Judas was not what we have traditionally believed, as well as the idea that Christ was able to mentally project his body to speak to people without actually being in that area. He predicted that we will continue to find revolutionary material concerning that period of time, but also that the figure who will be associated with the Second-coming of Christ will be alive somehwere by the year 2007 (predicted in the early 70's)." --Caleb Murdock 13:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The date given by Seth as channelled by Jane Roberts, during a session for the first Seth-dictated book entitled "Seth Speaks", was 2076, but it was a date that he had given for the onset of many specific actions that would have resulted from the return of the Christ entity, for example, the Roman Catholic Church would have lost much of its power/influence, and the Christ entity would have already been here in this physical reality. Having not read ALL of later "Early Sessions" books, this is the only date mentioned in the originally published books concerning the Christ entity. Without knowing how long the returning-Christ would live in our terms, it cannot be said that he would be alive by the year 2007. If there is any quote in the later "Early Sessions" books, please include it. --24.74.168.248 21:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)cheliro

Death of Jane Roberts

I have to mention this as I am not seeing it refuted in the above (or in the main article). Channeling Seth, and publishing the associated material did not preclude Jane Roberts from dying. I don't have the book in front of me, but I am presently re-reading a Seth book that states that everyone dies, period. References to Jane Roberts dying (regardless of how, in this case, from an illness) is irrelevant beyond that fact that she did die. No claim to the contrary was ever made. --Ethmar100 21:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If we create our own reality, why aren't we allowed to choose not to die? If we don't want to die horribly, why does it happen anyway? These are the questions that the issue raises. MaxMangel 02:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that I have "The Nature of Personal Reality" in front of me, I refer you to page 353 (Session 665, May 23, 1973): Quote: "Again, there are no accidents. No one dies under any circumstances who is not prepared to die. This applies to death through natural catastrophe as well as to any other situation." I am not speaking to the validity or accuracy of this quote, I am merely providing it as evidence supporting my prior paragraph. --Ethmar100 02:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Max, as Jane Roberts and Robert Butts were the vehicle through which the book was published this does not mean that either of them "lived" the material. I suppose it is possible with greater understanding (even scientific understanding) we may discover ways to prolong our lives. Again, metaphysics aside, I believe this to be a self-evident assertion. --Ethmar100 02:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you aren't aware of it, Max hasn't read any of the Seth material, so he can't carry on an intelligent discussion about it.

I'm the one who put this into the article: "Since Seth asserted that each individual 'creates his own reality', Roberts' illness and premature death are considered by some to cast doubt on the validity of Seth's teachings." It's clear to ME that Roberts and Seth were different personalities and that Seth didn't control Roberts' life, but many people still feel that her death somehow invalidated the material. Obviously, Roberts had her own "fish to fry", if you know what I mean, and Seth couldn't stop her from choosing a self-destructive path. This becomes painfully evident when you read The Way Toward Health, the book that Seth was dictating while Roberts was dying. Butts' notes make it all too clear that Roberts wanted to die and nothing would stop her. My own theory is that, like so many brilliant people, she burned out at the end. A lot of geniuses seem to come and go in a flash, like a comet.--Caleb Murdock 09:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your contribution Caleb - don't forget to insult me each time you post.

So, essentially, I guess what we can learn from this is that there is no such thing as rape, for example. The 'victim' actually always wants to get raped and so all rapists should be released from jail. In fact, all crime is endorsed by the victim, so we may as well do away with the justice system all together, because the only 'crimes' that occur are things that the victims explicitly desire. In fact, we should also do away with the health system, because illness is also something that is self created, as is healing, so we may as well get rid of the charade that hospitals and doctors are important.

Is that how it works? Perhaps I have it wrong. I'm trying to demonstraite the difficulty people have in rectifying the idea that all problems are self created and desired. MaxMangel 11:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So does there need to be a line edited into the article that indicates that the Seth material may have been self created by Roberts? I dont doubt that she wrote the Seth material. The evidence is in the fact that she published numerous books. The ideas in the text made her famous. Whether these thoughts were given to a victim type of neurosis, I dont think quite adequately describes the artistry and logic of what Roberts set out to achieve by publishing her thoughts. It is admirable that she entertains doubts about the authenticity and helpfulness of her channelled material. The intellectual position she her work implies is what is being debated here? Whether her channelled information is authentic? Roberts believed this to be the case, even if she was troubled by it. Edgar Cayce was troubled immensely by the material that he 'channelled'. Is Roberts a self-hypnotist? I think Max is wanting to indicate in the article that Roberts may have been delusional (having a silent agenda, like the psychology of a stage magician, who want the crows to beleive her tricks, for the purpose of gaining attention, and entertaining thoughts of the supernatural, as an intellectual game?). I think Caleb is wanting Roberts to speak for herself, via the works she produced? Whether or not channelling is a valid or invalid activity should probably be discussed under the stage magic article. I dont believe Roberts' intentions was to play out her victimhood, or to perform intellctual magic tricks. Drakonicon 07:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Drak, I am going to say to you what I keep saying to Mangel: If you want to be an intelligent contributor to either the article OR this discussion, you need to read some of Roberts' writings. Your suggetions aren't useful because you aren't familiar with the subject. You are groping in the dark.--Caleb Murdock 10:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about Caleb, Drak, you have every right to contribute here. You don't need to have read the Seth material to edit an article about Jane Roberts. But, to answer your paragraph, no, that is not what any of us were talking about. Might I recommend that in the future you keep your posts short and to the point. MaxMangel 06:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The short answer, Max, is that you really need to read at least one of the books and then a) reflect on the material and b) determine if any of it has any basis in reality. Make no mistake, this is heavy material and it doesn't lend itself to fluffy cocktail party conversation. Sorry if this comes off as a cop-out. --68.94.56.186 13:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Max, you are at a huge disadvantage here, and it is BECAUSE you won't read any of the material. All of your questions were answered by Seth.--Caleb Murdock 23:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this section is for discussing the article, so I wont push the issue further. But, in the future, try to avoid raising issues that you aren't prepared to defend. MaxMangel 23:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What issue?--Caleb Murdock 01:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This section of the discussion is about the death of Jane Roberts. The sentence about this in the article was criticised, I defended the sentence by beginning to explain the view point of how people find the idea of wanting something bad to happen to oneself to be strange, then, as a counter-argument, I was told to simply read the book. This does not an argument make, but I said I'd let it go. I hope that clears it up for you. MaxMangel 06:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh. In that case, you are really addressing your comment to the other fellow.

You are intelligent enough to know that the human mind is complex, and that what the conscious ego wants may not be what the subconscious wants. People are full of contradictions.

Consider also that a person may agree to do something for his own good that he doesn't really like. Thus, a person who wants an education may spend years in school, but may not enjoy it much. Reincarnation is like that. The ego self that we know is not the whole self, according to Seth. By having these so-called negative experiences, lessons are learned. A premature death may teach you to value life. A life as part of a hated minority group may teach you to appreciate differences instead of hating them. Et cetera.

This is why we forget our past lives. If we remembered everything and knew that we were immortal, learning the lessons of this world would be much harder.

Now, where Jane Roberts is concerned, we can't know what her personal agenda was. She had a horrible mother who was manipulative and filled her with Catholic guilt and generally messed up her mind. Roberts spent part of her life rebelling and trying to be independent and self-assertive, but there was part of her that never escaped from her mother's psychological grip. The Seth material was anti-Christian in many respects, and Roberts never resolved her personal conflicts over that, since she had been very religious early in life. Also, as I've said before, she never really liked being a trance medium and having somebody else's words come out of her mouth.--Caleb Murdock 08:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The God of Jane?

Yes, a bit tacky; a subsection using the title of one of Jane Roberts' books. I added the question mark.

So.... in the book that I bought on Friday, called Psychic Politics by Jane Roberts, I found many interesting quotes. Here is one from the editors of her book, re-published in the year 2000. Its pretty good: "... [Jane] refused to accept the "official" explanations of her experiences that both science and religion offered. Instead, Roberts spent her life searching for her own answers to the phenomenon of Seth and to her psychic abilities and experiences. She risked ridicule and asked questions. The conclusions she came to are, today, as relevant to our search for an understanding of consciousness as they were twenty years ago." (p vii, Psychic Politics, Roberts, 1976 [2000]).

So may i cite what i think is one of her conclusions about her abilities? I'll just let the above quote settle for a bit due to the fact that my posts are quite long. Read, interpret, feel, think, say more.... Go for it guys. Drakonicon 14:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Rollback of minor revisions

I believe that the revisions made are not correct. The one in which the third Christ figure -- Paul or Saul -- was identified as the Apostle Paul isn't, to the best of my memory, correct, but I am going to look into it. I remember reading those passages and wondering, "Is this the Apostle Paul that Seth is talking about?" and never getting an answer, but I may be wrong.

As for saying that Paul or Saul is going to "appear" in the "21th century", that is less specific and less accurate than what was already there. Seth most definitely said that Saul or Paul would "reincarnate", and he made it clear that it would be in mid-century.--Caleb Murdock 07:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Seth had dictated through Jane Roberts during a session for the book "Seth Speaks", that it was the Paul/Saul portion that would return in our future as the Christ-entity. Seth described the Christ-entity as being comprised of three strong personalities, biblically recorded as John the Baptist, Jesus-Christ, and Paul/Saul. Seth also described in "Seth Speaks" certain details of the meeting between the two, Jesus-Christ and Saul/Paul. Biblically, the meeting was described as Saul seeing a blinding light while walking along a road.

--24.74.168.248 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)cheliro

To have the "Oversoul Seven" books included in the NON-CHANNELLED section is not correct. Jane Roberts had written that the words in those books "came" to her and that she wrote or typed them by hand when she received them. In that regard the Oversoul Seven books should be classified as further channelled material, along side her books "The Afterdeath Journal of an American Philosopher", and "The World View of Paul Cezanne".

As a significant detail, it should be included elsewhere in the article that the Seth material was claimed to have been delivered "first draft/final draft" and was published as such, without either Jane or Rob changing or editing any of the material, except for the very rare inclusion of brackets [for clarification of an implied pronoun or such] or an added punctuation mark for a complex or very long sentence. Also, the specific grammatical directions that Seth had given---as to new paragraph, underlined phrases, comma, period, bold text, capitalized text, or offset text---are also recorded alongside the text in which Seth delivered, so that each and every word spoken during a transcribed, channelled session is recorded. Rob Butts further added other specific details into the text as italics (and in parentheses), to describe what was occurring in any given session, such as (very loudly), (whispering), (long pause), (slow delivery), (eyes closed), etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheliro (talk • contribs) 12:50, 5 August 2006 UTC

It should be added in the main article section that Jane Roberts also claimed that she had produced, at the very least, seven different "channels" of work: Seth, Seth II (very much different from Seth in scope and material), the Oversoul Seven books, the book on William James, the book on Paul Cezanne, the book "Emir's Education in the Proper Use of Magical Powers" (a children's book), the Sumari songs and poems, and an aspect that she had referred to as "Helper". In that regard, she could be considered one of the most, if not THE most, successful and active channellers in recorded history. --Cheliro 20:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)cheliro

Cheliro, you make a lot of great points. I have been extremely busy with my internet business, so I haven't looked at the article for a while. You are free, of course, to make the changes, and if I (or anyone else) don't like them, then I'll let you know.

Personally, I haven't made any contributions to the Quotes sections, and I don't have a good overview of the non-Seth books, though I'm well aware that Jane picked up other entities. If you have superior knowledge in this area, you should definitely go ahead and make contributions. Although I work on the article a lot, I certainly don't own it.--Caleb Murdock 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)